Recommended Posts

What has always baffled me is that all through this long Peel Hall Site Saga, nobody has yet asked for an inquiry into how Satnam managed to get this land at the low ‘agricultural value’ yet can now apply to develop it. When agricultural land is sold it is quite usual for the seller to include a legal agreement ensuring that should the land be later used for development then the original owner would get a substantial share of the profit.Wasn’t the original owner WBC? Do WBC stand to gain £££££££’s if the development goes ahead? If not, why was the land sold to a development company at agricultural value (without such a profit share contract) when it would be obvious that agricultural use would be the last thing a developer would want it for? If WBC had, at the time of selling, intended it to remain ‘agricultural land’ why weren’t steps taken to ensure that a future ‘change of use’ couldn’t be made?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

we need homes...Satnam are proposing to build homes... the plot of land is right next to the motorway and as such if it goes ahead will not flood local roads with loads of extra traffic as has happened in Chapelford and other developments.... got to be a good thing. After all, what is it being used for now anyway?

I think you will find that it was raised in Parliament many years ago and that concerned was dismissed. So as much as that hurts we are where we are and the damage has been done. It is no longer considered to be green land

Reply 

Sha on 17th January 2016 9:44 am 9:44 am

Hi Geoff, Where exactly will I find it was raised in Parliament? Was it raised in Parliamentary questions and if so by who? Would you know the date? (or approximate date) so that I could look it up and read it myself.

I’m not clear what part of my questions/concerns you are referring to as ‘it’.

Your last statement “It is no longer considered to be green land”. leads me to think that it was possibly the change of use from ‘green’ to ‘development’ land that you are referring to. Obviously this has been sanctioned as otherwise the latest planning application wouldn’t have been submitted. This wasn’t really the issue I was questioning.

What I really want to know is WHO, on behalf of WBC arranged the sale to Satnam? WBC (as representatives of the people of Warrington) when selling the town’s assets are obliged to get the best possible value. At the time of selling this land it would have been known that at some stage in the future there could be a ‘change of use’ and the land could be used for development – so selling it to Satnam for merely the agricultural value without including a legal agreement for WBC to have a share in any future profit was downright negligent! To Satnam getting a deal like that must have been like winning the lottery! I’m surprised every businessman in England didn’t put a bid in! The fact that other developers didn’t offer a better deal makes me wonder if any proper procurement procedures were carried out?

Whether or not the change of use issue was dismissed by Parliament is not relevant to the fact that there should be some inquiry into how (and who by) this incredible land sale deal was made. As it stands, Satnam will make millions and the people of Warrington will not only lose their green land but also the millions in shared profit that they should have got.

Personally I don’t think that just dismissing the issue by saying “as much as that hurts we are where we are and the damage has been done” is enough.

Geoff, this is not a personal criticism of you, as I really appreciate that you have taken the time to read and respond to my questions, but I would have expected that out of the 50+ Borough Councillors of this town that the majority, if not all, would be hopping mad at Warrington losing out like this!

Not that long ago, we almost lost Walton Hall and Gardens in a crazy attempt to sell it off for just £1 to a hotel company. What is going on and why do our councillors just sit back letting things like this happen?

I think you will find that it was raised in Parliament many years ago and that concerned was dismissed. So as much as that hurts we are where we are and the damage has been done. It is no longer considered to be green land

Reply 

Sha on 17th January 2016 9:44 am 9:44 am

Hi Geoff, Where exactly will I find it was raised in Parliament? Was it raised in Parliamentary questions and if so by who? Would you know the date? (or approximate date) so that I could look it up and read it myself.

I’m not clear what part of my questions/concerns you are referring to as ‘it’.

Your last statement “It is no longer considered to be green land”. leads me to think that it was possibly the change of use from ‘green’ to ‘development’ land that you are referring to. Obviously this has been sanctioned as otherwise the latest planning application wouldn’t have been submitted. This wasn’t really the issue I was questioning.

What I really want to know is WHO, on behalf of WBC arranged the sale to Satnam? WBC (as representatives of the people of Warrington) when selling the town’s assets are obliged to get the best possible value. At the time of selling this land it would have been known that at some stage in the future there could be a ‘change of use’ and the land could be used for development – so selling it to Satnam for merely the agricultural value without including a legal agreement for WBC to have a share in any future profit was downright negligent! To Satnam getting a deal like that must have been like winning the lottery! I’m surprised every businessman in England didn’t put a bid in! The fact that other developers didn’t offer a better deal makes me wonder if any proper procurement procedures were carried out?

Whether or not the change of use issue was dismissed by Parliament is not relevant to the fact that there should be some inquiry into how (and who by) this incredible land sale deal was made. As it stands, Satnam will make millions and the people of Warrington will not only lose their green land but also the millions in shared profit that they should have got.

Personally I don’t think that just dismissing the issue by saying “as much as that hurts we are where we are and the damage has been done” is enough.

Geoff, this is not a personal criticism of you, as I really appreciate that you have taken the time to read and respond to my questions, but I would have expected that out of the 50+ Borough Councillors of this town that the majority, if not all, would be hopping mad at Warrington losing out like this!

Not that long ago, we almost lost Walton Hall and Gardens in a crazy attempt to sell it off for just £1 to a hotel company. What is going on and why do our councillors just sit back letting things like this happen?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Steve makes a good point....... quite possibly the biggest winner out of all the failings of the "Warrington New Town" project was Eileen Bilton.... she looks to have made millions and millions from being no more than a name on an advertising campaign and exploited it to the full

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not that long ago, we almost lost Walton Hall and Gardens in a crazy attempt to sell it off for just £1 to a hotel company. What is going on and why do our councillors just sit back letting things like this happen?

Councillors didn't just sit back - Labour objected, and in the end the deal fell through. It wasn't the best moment of the LibDem/Tory "shared administration".

As for Peel Hall, the land was allocated for development in the New Town Outline Plan approved as long ago as 1972; I'm not sure how, in the annals of the Development Corporation, to discover if the sale price for the land was on that basis rather than (as some people think, who may be wrong) just as agricultural value. The vague wording of the green belt boundary meant the courts ruled the M62 was the obvious green belt boundary, but Peel Hall is still a "greenfield" site, and the Council has tried to prioritise use of brownfield (previously built-on) sites. That was in the Core Strategy. but then this government changed the rules, Satnam went to court and won most of their case, so we can expect a new outline planning application. This government's principle is that the default answer for a planning application is "yes", and they want new housing built (and falsely blame councils for not granting consent when there are umpteen consented developments where developers don't proceed because they want more profit).

One Derbyshire Council recently had to abandon its core strategy after all the public inquiry. They could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing in the pipeline, and they couldn't do that because their calculation of how many houses they'd get in the five-year period was scuppered by developers letting existing consents lapse. The best laid council plans are subject to the whim of developers and government policy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me either Sid. The fact they didn't put up a fight might mean they are saving their efforts until a later date. What developer would just sit back and let £ multi-millions drift away?

What's most crucial here are the grounds given for refusal and how they are worded. It's one thing refusing an application to appease the public - the real commitment to refusal is ensuring that it's refused on solid grounds.

Any appeal can only appeal the grounds given for refusal and sometimes the real solid grounds are the ones not stated and which therefore cannot be used later. Weak grounds make for an easy appeal!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm slightly perplexed by all this: this land has been identified for housing in the UDP, but not yet scheduled for release; so dependent on the local housing figure. So the question really isn't "when", but rather "what" ? What type of housing will be proposed, and will it fulfill local housing needs ? On the basis of the current housing crisis, the implication would be cheap rented, high density dwellings, which perhaps neighbours may object to.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The main reason for refusal was that Satnam hadn't demonstrated that the existing wider road network would cope adequately with the considerable increase in traffic. The highways people left an open invitation for Satnam to do so, but they say they're having some "technical difficulties" with their computer modelling gizmo: in other words, they can't demonstrate that the roads can cope, whatever they do.

This is a long way from over, I'm guessing a hefty "contribution" to "improving" the road network, probably through a Section 106 arrangement.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

No doubt; and all that becomes the subject of a detailed planning application at some point, when we run out of housing land availability and an outline application is submitted. What will be interesting is the type of housing proposed, and will a 106 require such community facilities as elderly care ?.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'm expecting the usual mix of identikit "executive" homes and the bare minimum of social/affordable housing (the latter will all be the closest to the M62).

And let's not forget, it was Kolin Dhillon of Satnam who had the housing targets in the core strategy more or less doubled when he challenged it through the courts. That affects the whole of Warrington, not just Peel Hall.